April 3, 2023
Interviews
♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn
♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
____
► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche & M. Boissavy, "Colloque : « Avocat et droits de la défense dans les enquêtes internes et la justice négociée »" ("Symposium: "Lawyers and rights of the defence in internal investigations""), interview with Olivia Dufour, Actu-Juridique, 3rd April 2023.
____
💬read the interview (in French)
____
► Presentation of the interview by the journal (in French): "Le Conseil national des barreaux (CNB) organise les 20 et 21 avril prochains un colloque intitulé « Avocat et droits de la défense dans les enquêtes internes et la justice négociée ». Matthieu Boissavy, avocat aux barreaux de Paris et de New York, médiateur et vice-président de la commission Libertés et droits de l’Homme du Conseil national des barreaux et Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professeure de droit, directrice du Journal of Regulation and Compliance nous expliquent les enjeux de ces nouvelles pratiques judiciaires qui bousculent le rôle traditionnel des acteurs de la justice, qu’il s’agisse des avocats ou des magistrats."
____
► Questions asked (in French):
________
June 14, 2021
Compliance: at the moment
► Do Compliance and Democracy have a relationship? China replies: no. Europe responds and must respond: they are intimate. The definition of Compliance Law is therefore essential.
In an interview of great clarity given in French to the Newspaper Les Echos on June 2, 2021, about Brexit, China and Russia (➡️📝 "Brexit, Chine, Russie : les confidences de la diplomate Sylvie Bermann"), Sylvie Bermann reminds the evolution of China. She sums up the situation as follows: « La Chine ne veut pas dominer le monde, elle veut être la première et surtout qu'on ne puisse pas lui imposer un système, la démocratie » ("China does not want to dominate the world, it wants to be the first and above all that no one can impose on it a system, Democracy,").
This is reflected in China's conception of Compliance Law. If one defines Compliance Law only as a "method" for the effectiveness of rules, consisting of a kind of "Ex Ante enforcement process" leading to 100% effectiveness of regulations by subjects who must show to everyone the respect they have for these regulations and who are rewarded by this proof thus given, then China, in its current use of Law, illustrates exactly this definition: subjects, individuals and companies, prove their "obedience" to rules - whatever the rules" substantial content -, which is evaluated ("rating") and rewarded, in a mechanical reign of the Ex Ante, served by technologies. Democratic mechanisms are not required; they are even disturbed, because they interfere with the efficiency of the system. The technological and purely technocratic conception of Compliance ("Regulation by data", for example) uses the same definition of Compliance Law, which leads to choose algorithms’ efficiency.
Europe must keep going to make another choice: European Compliance was born out of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s case law, in the 2014 judgment, Google Spain (➡️📝CJEU, Google Spain, May 13, 2021), to protect the person by inventing a subjective right: the right to be forgotten, in a digital space with infinite memory. Based on the Rule of Law, Compliance Law is then defined by its Monumental Goals, which are the protection of people and puts the judge at the center. It is the reverse of Chinese mechanics.
Therefore, they are definitions that lead the world: about the definition of Compliance Law by "Monumental Goals", see ➡️📅 the 2021 cycle of colloquia co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its university partners on Monumental Goals; on the technical influence of this definition on "Compliance tools" ➡️📕see Frison-Roche, M.-A., Legal Approach to Compliance Tools: Building by Law the unity of Compliance Tools from the definition of Compliance Law by its "Monumental Goals", 2021.
Dec. 8, 2020
Thesaurus : Doctrine
► Référence complète : M. Mezaguer, "L'Union européenne", in J.-B. Racine (dir.), Le droit économique au XXIe siècle. Notions et enjeux, LGDJ, coll. "Droit & Économie", 2020, pp. 671-691
____
📕consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Le droit économique au XXIe siècle. Notions et enjeux, dans lequel cet article est publié
____
► Résumé de l'article :
____
🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche
________
June 27, 2018
Thesaurus : Doctrine
Référence complète : Potvin-Solis., L., Le dialogue entre la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme et la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne dans dans la garantie des droits fondamentaux, in Mélanges en l'honneur de Frédéric Sudre, Les droits de l'homme à la croisée des droits, LexisNexis, 2018, pp. 591-602.
Lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage.
Les étudiants de Sciences-Po peuvent consulter l'article via le Drive, dossier "MAFR- Régulation & Compliance".
Updated: July 31, 2013 (Initial publication: Oct. 17, 2011)
Teachings : Les Grandes Questions du Droit, semestre d'automne 2011
Updated: July 31, 2013 (Initial publication: Sept. 6, 2011)
Teachings : Les Grandes Questions du Droit, semestre d'automne 2011
Updated: July 31, 2013 (Initial publication: Oct. 4, 2011)
Teachings : Les Grandes Questions du Droit, semestre d'automne 2011
Updated: July 31, 2013 (Initial publication: Dec. 6, 2011)
Teachings : Les Grandes Questions du Droit, semestre d'automne 2011
Updated: July 31, 2013 (Initial publication: Sept. 20, 2011)
Teachings : Les Grandes Questions du Droit, semestre d'automne 2011